Grub's Canucks & NHL News, Rumours, and & Fantasy GM | Training Camp Begins

[iceburg]

The definition of "Generational talent" is an interesting discussion. To me the player has to be someone who changed how the game is played or has aspects of his game that have never been seen before or perhaps since. There are lots of elite players but only a few is the generational category:

Definitely Generational
Orr: the best defenseman ever to play the game. If Centurial was a thing in hockey, I'd call him that.
Gretzky: Most dominant offensive player in history.
Lemieux: Only player that comes close to being as good as Gretzky and for parts of his career was better. If he wasn't hampered by injuries he may have even passed Gretzky as the best ever.
McDavid: Nobody has ever done the things that he does at that speed.
Howe: Man playing against boys in the best league in the world. (he scored >0.5pts/game at 51 years old )


On the cusp: Arguable
Beliveau: Dominant for nearly 20 years. Moved him down to this category. He's the only player on this list that I don't remember seeing play. Adds a little uncertainty for me.
Crosby: Beautiful combination of skill, strength, and heart
Lindros (I wouldn't have him in this category but I know lots of people would disagree)

Truly Elite but not generational.
Jagr
Sakic
Forsberg
MacKinnon
Esposito
LaFleur
Matthews
Ovechkin
etc
this is a long list

 

[strattonius]

The generational word is pretty self explanatory. You're likely only to see 1 of these players in a generation. Lots of people loosen it up and add all sorts of players like Mackinnon or Makar in to the conversation.

McDavid and Crosby are the only ones in my lifetime and I'm 38 years old.

 

[MS]

Ya I have no idea what was really going on, but I am bitter that he missed so much time when he was starting to absolutely dominate the league.

Just googled it and my recollection was correct. It was a soft-tissue neck injury that was presenting as concussion-like symptoms. Was mis-diagnosed for a long time which is why those two years were wasted.

The generational word is pretty self explanatory. You're likely only to see 1 of these players in a generation. Lots of people loosen it up and add all sorts of players like Mackinnon or Makar in to the conversation.

McDavid and Crosby are the only ones in my lifetime and I'm 38 years old.

I tend to interpret it as 'per generation of NHL players', like one guy at this level comes along every 10-15 years and you maybe have one in the league at a time most of the time.

 

[iceburg]

I tend to interpret it as 'per generation of NHL players', like one guy at this level comes along every 10-15 years and you maybe have one in the league at a time most of the time.

So, that would be 5-8 players post WWII, give or take.

 

[Nuckles]

Friedman goes unclaimed

https://x.com/i/web/status/1844075966580301923

 

[Deeds26]

Edit: Nuckles beat me by a millisecond, which I tell my wife is a long time.

Sorry to disrupt everyone's convo about generational talent which we all know has one player, Jeff "The Brabarian" Cowan

 

[pitseleh]

The definition of "Generational talent" is an interesting discussion. To me the player has to be someone who changed how the game is played or has aspects of his game that have never been seen before or perhaps since. There are lots of elite players but only a few is the generational category:

Definitely Generational
Orr: the best defenseman ever to play the game. If Centurial was a thing in hockey, I'd call him that.
Gretzky: Most dominant offensive player in history.
Lemieux: Only player that comes close to being as good as Gretzky and for parts of his career was better. If he wasn't hampered by injuries he may have even passed Gretzky as the best ever.
McDavid: Nobody has ever done the things that he does at that speed.
Howe: Man playing against boys in the best league in the world. (he scored >0.5pts/game at 51 years old )


On the cusp: Arguable
Beliveau: Dominant for nearly 20 years. Moved him down to this category. He's the only player on this list that I don't remember seeing play. Adds a little uncertainty for me.
Crosby: Beautiful combination of skill, strength, and heart
Lindros (I wouldn't have him in this category but I know lots of people would disagree)

Truly Elite but not generational.
Jagr
Sakic
Forsberg
MacKinnon
Esposito
LaFleur
Matthews
Ovechkin
etc
this is a long list

I’d add Hasek to generational. That list is who I think of when I think of players who seemed (or would have seemed) like they were playing a different game than everyone else.

Crosby, Jagr, Ovechkin, Béliveau, Hull, Lidstrom, and Bourque would all be one level down for me.

 

[Canucker]

The definition of "Generational talent" is an interesting discussion. To me the player has to be someone who changed how the game is played or has aspects of his game that have never been seen before or perhaps since. There are lots of elite players but only a few is the generational category:

Definitely Generational
Orr: the best defenseman ever to play the game. If Centurial was a thing in hockey, I'd call him that.
Gretzky: Most dominant offensive player in history.
Lemieux: Only player that comes close to being as good as Gretzky and for parts of his career was better. If he wasn't hampered by injuries he may have even passed Gretzky as the best ever.
McDavid: Nobody has ever done the things that he does at that speed.
Howe: Man playing against boys in the best league in the world. (he scored >0.5pts/game at 51 years old )


On the cusp: Arguable
Beliveau: Dominant for nearly 20 years. Moved him down to this category. He's the only player on this list that I don't remember seeing play. Adds a little uncertainty for me.
Crosby: Beautiful combination of skill, strength, and heart
Lindros (I wouldn't have him in this category but I know lots of people would disagree)

Truly Elite but not generational.
Jagr
Sakic
Forsberg
MacKinnon
Esposito
LaFleur
Matthews
Ovechkin
etc
this is a long list

Its a very subjective topic...One i would add to the "Generational" list is Dom Hasek and one to the "Arguable" list is Nik Lidstrom...but again, very subjective.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Nice to still have Friedman in the organization - depth is crucial. But I wonder if some shuffling in Abbotsford is forthcoming.

 

[Ernie]

What would the generational talents throughout history be?

To me the generational talents in my lifetime have been Gretzky -> Lemieux -> Crosby -> McDavid. Jagr is a bit of an edge case, he probably deserves it but he was overshadowed a bit by Lemieux. It's crazy that he won 4 straight scoring titles but only one Hart trophy.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

What would the generational talents throughout history be?

To me the generational talents in my lifetime have been Gretzky -> Lemieux -> Crosby -> McDavid. Jagr is a bit of an edge case, he probably deserves it but he was overshadowed a bit by Lemieux. It's crazy that he won 4 straight scoring titles but only one Hart trophy.

I think that’s a fair list, although a bit skewed by position. For example, I think Orr and Lidstrom are generational defenders (ie - so, so, so, so much better than their peer groups).

I see the argument for Hasek, but there was a number of top flight goalies playing during his time. You could argue that he was possibly the best of the bunch, but the gap isn’t as far as the defensemen, and certainly not as far as the forwards.

 

[VanillaCoke]

Heck yes for Mark Friedman . GMs so stupid ..

 

[Ernie]

I think that’s a fair list, although a bit skewed by position. For example, I think Orr and Lidstrom are generational defenders (ie - so, so, so, so much better than their peer groups).

I see the argument for Hasek, but there was a number of top flight goalies playing during his time. You could argue that he was possibly the best of the bunch, but the gap isn’t as far as the defensemen, and certainly not as far as the forwards.

Yep I'd support breaking it down by position. Ray Bourque put up unreal numbers offensively, for instance. You could certainly argue for Hasek, he was just on a different level.

 

[LemonSauceD]

I mean Ovechkin is about to set the record league goals so I would think as far as Europeans go, he’s generational.

 

[Ernie]

I mean Ovechkin is about to set the record league goals so I would think as far as Europeans go, he’s generational.

At this point it's more about the longevity of his career than anything else. If we want to call him generational we also have to think about Auston Matthews being generational and that idea made me throw up in my mouth a little bit.

 

[Ernie]

Abbotsford has 10 defensemen who should be in the starting lineup right now.

Brisebois
Brannstrom
Felton
Friedman
Hirose
Kudyravtsev
McWard
Pettersson
Wolanin
Woo

Something has to give. Can they lend players out to other AHL teams?

 

[Nona Di Giuseppe]

The definition of "Generational talent" is an interesting discussion. To me the player has to be someone who changed how the game is played or has aspects of his game that have never been seen before or perhaps since. There are lots of elite players but only a few is the generational category:

Definitely Generational
Orr: the best defenseman ever to play the game. If Centurial was a thing in hockey, I'd call him that.
Gretzky: Most dominant offensive player in history.
Lemieux: Only player that comes close to being as good as Gretzky and for parts of his career was better. If he wasn't hampered by injuries he may have even passed Gretzky as the best ever.
McDavid: Nobody has ever done the things that he does at that speed.
Howe: Man playing against boys in the best league in the world. (he scored >0.5pts/game at 51 years old )


On the cusp: Arguable
Beliveau: Dominant for nearly 20 years. Moved him down to this category. He's the only player on this list that I don't remember seeing play. Adds a little uncertainty for me.
Crosby: Beautiful combination of skill, strength, and heart
Lindros (I wouldn't have him in this category but I know lots of people would disagree)

Truly Elite but not generational.
Jagr
Sakic
Forsberg
MacKinnon
Esposito
LaFleur
Matthews
Ovechkin
etc
this is a long list

Drop Lindros to tier below and put Crosby up.

He’s absolutely generational. Without a doubt.

Ovechkin’s dominance over time should also be considered. That kind of longevity isn’t going to be seen for a long time.

 

[TruGr1t]

Abbotsford has 10 defensemen who should be in the starting lineup right now.

Brisebois
Brannstrom
Felton
Friedman
Hirose
Kudyravtsev
McWard
Pettersson
Wolanin
Woo

Something has to give. Can they lend players out to other AHL teams?

The LS is a bit crazy with:

Brannstrom
Wolanin
Brisebois
Hirois
Pettersson
Kudryatsev

The RS is more reasonable:

Friedman
Felton
McWard
Woo

Kudryatsev can play both sides apparently, though not sure if they want him swapped. It will be interesting to see if there's a trade of some kind, as they'll want to get at least Pettersson and Kudryatsev ice on the left, and Brannstrom probably has a spot. Leaving Brisebois, Hirois and Wolanin as potential candidates to move.

Short of anyone moving over, the right-side looks fairly set.

 

[Bertuzzzi44]

Expectations are sky high this year, was listening to Donnie & Dhali and most think the Canucks would have beaten the Oilers in game 7 with Boeser & Demko in the lineup. The bar is set to WCF (3rd round minimum) for this to be considered a successful season.

 

[Lindgren]

The LS is a bit crazy with:

Brannstrom
Wolanin
Brisebois
Hirois
Pettersson
Kudryatsev

The RS is more reasonable:

Friedman
Felton
McWard
Woo

Kudryatsev can play both sides apparently, though not sure if they want him swapped. It will be interesting to see if there's a trade of some kind, as they'll want to get at least Pettersson and Kudryatsev ice on the left, and Brannstrom probably has a spot. Leaving Brisebois, Hirois and Wolanin as potential candidates to move.

Short of anyone moving over, the right-side looks fairly set.

There was an interesting bit in a recent CanucksArmy piece on the Abby back-end: apparently Brannstrom has played lots on the right and says he feels more comfortable there. (I posted about it in the Abbotsford thread.)

 

[Ernie]

The LS is a bit crazy with:

Brannstrom
Wolanin
Brisebois
Hirois
Pettersson
Kudryatsev

The RS is more reasonable:

Friedman
Felton
McWard
Woo

Kudryatsev can play both sides apparently, though not sure if they want him swapped. It will be interesting to see if there's a trade of some kind, as they'll want to get at least Pettersson and Kudryatsev ice on the left, and Brannstrom probably has a spot. Leaving Brisebois, Hirois and Wolanin as potential candidates to move.

Short of anyone moving over, the right-side looks fairly set.

Beyond roster spots, you also have to wonder about ice time. They'll want to feed plenty to their higher profile prospects, but the vets like Wolanin, Brannstrom, and Friedman are probably in a better position to help the team win with their minutes. Hirose and Brisebois are on one way deals that will be all but impossible to move unless the Canucks bring back a forward with similar salary. Maybe they find a new home for Felton but would be a little odd after just signing him.

Woo and McWard would be the easiest to move to another organization who want some decent AHL depth.

 

[iceburg]

Its a very subjective topic...One i would add to the "Generational" list is Dom Hasek and one to the "Arguable" list is Nik Lidstrom...but again, very subjective.

Hasek is a good add.

I'm not sure I agree that it's subjective though. When the vast number of people have a common list of the top 4 or 5 based on facts, that's about as objective as it gets. I appreciate that once you get farther down the list it gets more subjective.

 

[iceburg]

Drop Lindros to tier below and put Crosby up.

He’s absolutely generational. Without a doubt.

Ovechkin’s dominance over time should also be considered. That kind of longevity isn’t going to be seen for a long time.

I initially had Crosby in the top tier. I wouldn't make a argument against it. I agree on Lindros. I'm not actually sure why so many put him a tier up. I just know a lot of people do.

Ovechkin is a little too one dimensional for me. He's obviously a great goal scorer but I'm not sure where the line can be drawn if he's included. If he goes into the generational category then you have to think about Mike Bossy who had significantly more goals per game but only played about half the number of games. Austin Matthews would then have to be considered. What about Brett and Bobby Hull? Bure even had more goals per game than OVI. For me the list gets too long to be considered "generational." But, obviously there's an argument for Ovechkin, especially when he becomes that all time leader in goals, which as you say is tied to his longevity.

 

[Canucker]

Hasek is a good add.

I'm not sure I agree that it's subjective though. When the vast number of people have a common list of the top 4 or 5 based on facts, that's about as objective as it gets. I appreciate that once you get farther down the list it gets more subjective.

I think the "subjectivity" of it is probably more due to the word "Generational" than the players themselves. In my era (70's until now), how many generations would that really account for? Just talking goalies for example, during my time as a hockey fan I would say that Hasek, Brodeur and Roy (in that order) were THE goalies of the time and I don't think there have been any since who are at that level, all 3 are, or are very close to generational goalies, but if they are all from virtually the same generation can they all be generational? I don't know maybe I'm just overthinking, it but that's where the subjectivity comes from for me.

 

[Canuckle1970]

There was a lot of concern a year ago when he was made Captain - too young, too much pressure will have a negative impact on his game. I believed he was up for the challenge, and he proved it with a fantastic season. Winning the Norris was the cherry on top.

He has wonderful skills, but what will make him a future Cup winner is his focused drive and his mental maturity, despite his youth. In that sense, he reminds me of a young Sidney Crosby.